Why did Hurricane Sandy take such an unusual track into New Jersey?

We're used to seeing hurricane-battered beaches and flooded cities in Florida, North Carolina, and the Gulf Coast. But to see these images from the Jersey Shore and New York City in the wake of Hurricane Sandy is a shocking experience. New Jersey only rarely gets hit by hurricanes because it lies in a portion of the coast that doesn't stick out much, and is too far north. How did this happen? How was a hurricane able to move from southeast to northwest at landfall, so far north, and so late in hurricane season? We expect hurricanes to move from east to west in the tropics, where the prevailing trade winds blow that direction. But the prevailing wind direction reverses at mid-latitudes, flowing predominately west-to-east, due to the spin of the Earth. Hurricanes that penetrate to about Florida's latitude usually get caught up in these westerly winds, and are whisked northeastwards, out to sea. However, the jet stream, that powerful band of upper-atmosphere west-to-east flowing air, has many dips and bulges. These troughs of low pressure and ridges of high pressure allow winds at mid-latitudes to flow more to the north or to the south. Every so often, a trough in the jet stream bends back on itself when encountering a ridge of high pressure stuck in place ahead of it. These "negatively tilted" troughs have winds that flow from southeast to northwest. It is this sort of negatively tilted trough that sucked in Sandy and allowed the hurricane to take such an unusual path into New Jersey.

The 1903 Vagabond HurricaneThe only other hurricane to hit New Jersey since 1851 besides Sandy was the 1903 Category 1 Vagabond Hurricane. According to Wikipedia, the Vagabond Hurricane caused heavy damage along the New Jersey coast ($180 million in 2006 dollars.) The hurricane killed 57 people, and endangered the life of President Theodore Roosevelt, who was sailing on a yacht near Long Island, NY, when the hurricane hit. However, the Vagabond Hurricane hit in September, when the jet stream is typically weaker and farther to the north. It is quite extraordinary that Sandy was able to hit New Jersey in late October, when the jet stream is typically stronger and farther south, making recurvature to the northeast much more likely than in September.

Figure 2. The path of the 1903 Vagabond Hurricane, the only other hurricane to hit New Jersey since 1851.

The blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New JerseyA strong ridge of high pressure parked itself over Greenland beginning on October 20, creating a "blocking ridge" that prevented the normal west-to-east flow of winds over Eastern North America. Think of the blocking ridge like a big truck parked over Greenland. Storms approaching from the west (like the fall low pressure system that moved across the U.S. from California to Pennsylvania last week) or from the south (Hurricane Sandy) were blocked from heading to the northeast. Caught in the equivalent of an atmospheric traffic jam, the two storms collided over the Northeast U.S., combined into one, and are now waiting for the truck parked over Greenland to move. The strength of the blocking ridge, as measured by the strength of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), was quite high--about two standard deviations from average, something that occurs approximately 5% of the time. When the NAO is in a strong negative phase, we tend to have blocking ridges over Greenland.

Figure 3. Jet stream winds at a pressure of 300 mb on October 29, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy approached the coast of New Jersey. Note that the wind direction over New Jersey (black arrows) was from the southeast, due to a negatively tilted trough of low pressure over the Eastern U.S. caused by a strong blocking ridge of high pressure over Greenland. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.

Arctic sea ice loss can cause blocking ridgesBlocking ridges occur naturally, but are uncommon over Greenland this time of year. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, blocking near the longitude of Greenland (50°W) only occurs about 2% of the time in the fall. These odds rise to about 6% in winter and spring. As I discussed in an April post, Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns, three studies published in the past year have found that the jet stream has been getting stuck in unusually strong blocking patterns in recent years. These studies found that the recent record decline in Arctic sea ice could be responsible, since this heats up the pole, altering the Equator-to-pole temperature difference, forcing the jet stream to slow down, meander, and get stuck in large loops. The 2012 Arctic sea ice melt season was extreme, with sea ice extent hitting a record lows. Could sea ice loss have contributed to the blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New Jersey? It is possible, but we will need to much more research on the subject before we make such a link, as the studies of sea ice loss on jet stream patterns are so new. The author of one of the new studies, Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers, had this say in a recent post by Andy Revkin in his Dot Earth blog:"While it’s impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s, the situation at hand is completely consistent with what I’d expect to see happen more often as a result of unabated warming and especially the amplification of that warming in the Arctic."

just going by what everyone was saying after 2005 season.....have not seen the majors like they were saying...

And again, 7 years does not a climate make, especially for a data set that is particularly noisy from year to year. Get back to us in another 13-23 years when we are actually covering a period of time that can be described as climate. Until then, any comparisons of tropical cyclone activity and tropical cyclone intensity between years are best described as weather or climate variability.

replying to a very old post (802) but I see the action's moved on to the next JM blog post, so FWIW...

Quoting WitsEndNJ:

[...] everywhere trees fell and took down power lines. Why? pictures here:

http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-happen ed-to-power.html

The trees are rotten on the inside.

As this piece talks about the UK's Forestry Commission I can perhaps comment with a bit of personal experience... not something I'd have expected for the Sandy threads! I live in the Forest of Dean, which is (by UK standards) fairly densely wooded -- lots of commercial coniferous plantations but also lots of native broadleaf species. Anecdotally, I haven't seen any evidence of ozone causing trees to die or rot from the inside. Occam's Razor suggests to me that a lot of trees that have fallen have rotten hearts because they're weaker than healthy trees, and the reason so many trees have come down is that the US NE hasn't had many storms with high windspeeds over a large area -- certainly nothing like Sandy -- for decades. In the absence of high winds, broadleaf trees will survive for many, many years after the heartwood has started to decay. If, say (picking a number at random) 1% of all trees get to the state where 70mph winds will bring them down, and you don't get such high windspeeds for 20 years, the number that fall will be pretty close to 20%.

Finally, if (as the blog piece linked to claims) ozone damage to trees is well established -- I've no reason to disbelieve this -- and if ozone levels are regularly monitored over a wide area -- as they are -- it would be pretty obvious what was happening. It's hard to suppress information about the composition of the atmosphere! [redact tangent about AGW here ;) ] I note that the 'Grauniad' piece linked to from the blog doesn't make any mention of ozone *or any other pollutants*, at all. The current problem with ash fungus attacks really *did* first break out in continental Europe, and it *has* spread to the UK. Again this is all easily verified from open sources. Now, 25 years ago acid rain caused by unscrubbed sulphur dioxide from coal-burning power stations really WAS a problem, and it WAS clearly visible in the Dean. How that problem was tackled is too far OT to go into here (but it's interesting in the light of more contemporary, er, "issues of environmental pollution".

Thanks for the reply.Well that does make some kind of sense as a hind sight cover-up kind of position. But the way most normal warnings read: (I paraphrase) "...area can expect hurricane conditions within 24 hours...". She was still an undisputed hurricane 24 hours out, so the warning should have been issued as such. If she were undisputed cold core or extra tropical more than 24 hours out then I could understand and accept the omission of the word 'hurricane' from the warnings.

Thanks again for the reply.

Which part of the NHC statement didn't you understand?!

Forecast discussion states: TO AVOID A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE CHANGE FROM TROPICAL TO NON-TROPICAL WARNINGS WHEN SANDY BECOMES POST-TROPICAL...THE WIND HAZARD NORTH OF THE TROPICAL STORM WARNING AREA WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONVEYED THROUGH HIGH WIND WATCHES ANDWARNINGS ISSUED BY LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICES.

The media? Feh! The media was creating terms like superstorm and megastorm and drew comparisons to other events like snowmageddon and snowtember. That's not taking warning seriously. And they're hyping it, rather saying, they underhyped it by showing that "Day after tomorrow" clip all the time which everyone understood it would not happen so many assumed nothing would happen. Including Mr. Bloomberg.

Dr. Forbes on TWC gave an explanation on the term "superstorm". because of the 2 systems coming together (the nor'easter and cold coming down, and hurricane Sandy) it was creating a "superstorm" that was unprecedented. you have all the effects of the nor'easter, snow, wind, cold, combined with the hurricane--wind, surge, rain. The size of the system(s) was incredible, with the energy of the nor'easter feeding into the tropical energy.

It was mentioned numerous times that this was "historic", unprecedented, and going to be a very dangerous storm for areas that don't usually take a direct hit. I'm in central Illinois, and we had couple very windy days from this storm! (hubby is from galveston area, lots of family down there-Rita got me hooked on this site-back to lurking....

Quoting BosGuy:As a layperson in Boston, I would sure appreciate it if someone could tell me the likelihood and severity of the second nor'easter you are all telling me is coming back to knock over our remaining trees next week. I know folks don't always translate these discussions--and shouldn't have to--but this week there are a lot of worried average joes and janes looking at this blog.

On another note: Where are people under evacuation order supposed to go? A well-off person can decide that it's a good week to take a spontaneous vacation to San Francisco. What if you're just working class, living paycheck to paycheck, and have no relatives you can stay with? Do you just get on the road up the Thruway and hope you find somewhere safe, even though Sandy is supposed to strike the whole area with great force? What if you don't even have a car, like many people in NYC and NJ? It does no good to assume options that simply don't exist.

There are shelters everywhere for just this sort of emergency. With every "mandatory evacuation order" there will also be lists of places to go, and of ways to get there.

Quoting kwgirl: I disagree with you. the warnings were very clear on TWC. I watched it so I know. Norcross and all meteorolgists on the channel kept repeating storm surge, high winds, etc, pointing out the coast area most likely to feel the brunt. And NJ was in the target most of the time. I think the uncertainty of where it would make landfall was a good enough reason for people to not heed the advice. They kept thinking it would be another Irene. I knew last year when that storm didn't pan out for the area forcasted that something like this might occur. We see it all the time in the Keys. That one 2 years ago didn't hit and this one is coming on the same path. People just don't realize all the forces that steer hurricanes. The people who did not evacuate ignored the warnings as I did during Wilma.

to say that that there was uncertainty in where it would make landfall is ridiculous all the models forecasted it to make landfall on the jersey shore

That threat index was for NYC where the rats have been displaced from the flooding subway and sewer system. I'm surprised citizens aren't directing traffic there.

I would give you a threat index for Houston TX but it foods when a mouse drinks too much water before bedtime.I mean nutria.

Those fire ant balls are horrid! and the water only needs to be inches deep for them to start building them. Our citizen had a hard time with them during restoration efforts after the Suwannee river flooded.

As a layperson in Boston, I would sure appreciate it if someone could tell me the likelihood and severity of the second nor'easter you are all telling me is coming back to knock over our remaining trees next week. I know folks don't always translate these discussions--and shouldn't have to--but this week there are a lot of worried average joes and janes looking at this blog.

On another note: Where are people under evacuation order supposed to go? A well-off person can decide that it's a good week to take a spontaneous vacation to San Francisco. What if you're just working class, living paycheck to paycheck, and have no relatives you can stay with? Do you just get on the road up the Thruway and hope you find somewhere safe, even though Sandy is supposed to strike the whole area with great force? What if you don't even have a car, like many people in NYC and NJ? It does no good to assume options that simply don't exist.

"People" may have been saying that. Show us a single climatologist that said any such thing. The climatologists were saying that a warming atmosphere will hold more moisture and this has a potential for stronger hurricanes. None of them said it would raise the potential for land falling events and therefore none would have targeted the U.S. for having a greater number of land falling hurricanes.

You want to win the day for the denial industry? This could quite easily be done, IF you could show us the tested science that would invalidated the AGWT. Yes, I know, that is too hard to do so just don't even try. Right? It is far easier to instill doubt and confusion through misrepresentations and false illusions. I am starting to notice that the public is beginning to catch on as to which side is the perpetrator of the hoax. The perpetrators are not the scientist, but the denial industry. So, is this the denial industry's last big push into battle before losing their war based on lies? Did you think you had more time before the denial industry's hoax was exposed? Yes, we all originally thought that too. Now, not so much. Time is running out and more people are starting to realize this!

Your accusations are baseless without the evidence to support them, yoboi! Unless you just wish to stick to the claim that "people" were the ones saying this and not the scientific community itself, in which case, you are probably correct.

we have the so called experts saying sandy could be due to climate change......keep crying wolf and see how many people will belive.....prove to me that climate change does not go in cycles.....prove it....

Quoting MechEngMet:Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?

As I said, I'm part of the conspiracy. So, yes I could tell you, but no I will not.

But remember... it's definitely a conspiracy and it was definitely not based on any of the data or analyses posted numerous times by my co-conspirators here.

Quoting yoboi:

and i also agree with the new term climate change; climate does change it goes in cycles....

If you're implying that the climate change we're seeing now is part of a natural cycle please do educate us as to which cycle is causing it. Scientists who study this topic professionally have ruled out all natural cycles, so I'm guessing you've got some pretty awesome data they haven't seen yet. Please share. You can trust me - I promise I'm not part of the conspiracy.

Most homeowners along the East Coast won't have to pay potentially huge hurricane deductibles before insurance coverage kicks in for damage caused by Tropical Storm Sandy, say state officials.

...

Although Sandy was designated a hurricane for the majority of time it traveled up the coast, it failed to sustain hurricane-force winds at landfall, so it was officially a tropical storm. That means homeowners in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Maryland won't be on the hook for costly hurricane deductibles, and state officials are putting insurers on notice.

Quoting sar2401:I don't know about on the ball, but 27 years of law enforcement and search and rescue work did teach me a few things. :) I know for sure what doesn't work, and having us going out and arresting people doesn't work. I'm not sure why turning off utilities is such a hard concept to understand. It just takes some pre-planning on the part of utilities and emergency management. We got really good at this in California during the days of rolling blackouts, so it's not technically all that difficult.

I like the idea of shutting off utilities. By now most people living on the coast and other regions subject to natural disasters must realize that there are certain consequences for living where they do. If danger is imminent, cutting utilities not only protects expensive and vital equipment, but makes some people realize how serious the danger could be( they loose money when killing the power ). I been through many storms, the power is usually lost anyway, and could be restored to folks quicker if it was shut off in the first place.... Just my harmless opinion.

after the 2005 season people were saying due to climate change to expect majors to hitt the USA more often.....when was the last time the USA got hitt by a major???

"People" may have been saying that. Show us a single climatologist that said any such thing. The climatologists were saying that a warming atmosphere will hold more moisture and this has a potential for stronger hurricanes. None of them said it would raise the potential for land falling events and therefore none would have targeted the U.S. for having a greater number of land falling hurricanes.

You want to win the day for the denial industry? This could quite easily be done, IF you could show us the tested science that would invalidate the AGWT. Yes, I know, that is too hard to do so just don't even try. Right? It is far easier to instill doubt and confusion through misrepresentations and false illusions. I am starting to notice that the public is beginning to catch on as to which side is the perpetrator of the hoax. The perpetrators are not the scientist, but the denial industry. So, is this the denial industry's last big push into battle before losing their war based on lies? Did you think you had more time before the denial industry's hoax was exposed? Yes, we all originally thought that too. Now, not so much. Time is running out and more people are starting to realize this!

Your accusations are baseless without the evidence to support them, yoboi! Unless you just wish to stick to the claim that "people" were the ones saying this and not the scientific community itself, in which case, you are probably correct.

I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?

Actually Darwin cares... it was the HMS Beagle en route with Mr. Darwin on which the Beaufort scale firstly was used, including the grade hurricane force later commonly known as BF 12. :P

I hope they are able to set up a organized enough effort to be able to take the brunt of whatever materializes out of that. Even a moderate 6-12" snow storm could wreck all kinds of havoc to a gutted infrastructure.

Even rain, especially rain. I knew a man who had a hole in his roof after Wilma. Well, it is very hard to find anyone to fix anything after a hurricane. A week later we had a deluge which totally ruined his home. Because he did not mitigate the damages the insurance company totally disallowed any claim from the damage to the inside. So everyone with a hole or two in your roof, get some tarps and nail them down. Snow and possibly rain is coming.

Quoting sar2401:Because constitutional rights apply to all states. You must have probable cause to arrest someone. If they say "I'm not leaving" when they've been given a direct, lawful order, that's enough probable cause to make an arrest (or issue a citation, which is an arrest, but you promise to appear in court). If they say "OK, I'm leaving" then don't, you can arrest them if they are caught inside an evacuation zone, but you can't just bust into a house looking for people when the violation is only a misdemeanor. If they are out wandering the streets in an evacuation zone, you can arrest them. The basic issue remains, however. There are only so many cops to go around. do you want us out rescuing people in immediate peril or hunting down citizens and writing citations?

You link didn't work for me but, assuming it's about NYC public housing, conditions are so bad that a lot of tenants wouldn't even notice if their utilities were out, since they are out so frequently. These are the poorest of the poor, and they know the police will be unable to protect what little they have from the thugs who will view evacuations as a shopping opportunity. They stay because they have very little choice. There are always exceptions to every rule, but turning off utilities will work for the vast majority of citizens, and a lot less would be dead now if they knew there would be any power for sure if they stayed.

the link worked for me and no it didnt say they wouldnt notice that their utilities were out..LOL..I tell ya..its not so easy for someone to evacuate which this article explains..

Good afternoon. This is an interesting satellite loop of TS Rosa showing how 20kts of shear acts on a cyclone. Watch how the main thunderstorm complex doesn't move at all from beginning to end but the center is clearly moving west, especially in the last couple frames:

I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?

What is the impact of omitting 'hurricane'? I thought it worked in the homeowner's favor at least in New York where the additional hurricane deductible won't be enforced...

Quoting sar2401:Because constitutional rights apply to all states. You must have probable cause to arrest someone. If they say "I'm not leaving" when they've been given a direct, lawful order, that's enough probable cause to make an arrest (or issue a citation, which is an arrest, but you promise to appear in court). If they say "OK, I'm leaving" then don't, you can arrest them if they are caught inside an evacuation zone, but you can't just bust into a house looking for people when the violation is only a misdemeanor. If they are out wandering the streets in an evacuation zone, you can arrest them. The basic issue remains, however. There are only so many cops to go around. do you want us out rescuing people in immediate peril or hunting down citizens and writing citations?

You link didn't work for me but, assuming it's about NYC public housing, conditions are so bad that a lot of tenants wouldn't even notice if their utilities were out, since they are out so frequently. These are the poorest of the poor, and they know the police will be unable to protect what little they have from the thugs who will view evacuations as a shopping opportunity. They stay because they have very little choice. There are always exceptions to every rule, but turning off utilities will work for the vast majority of citizens, and a lot less would be dead now if they knew there would be any power for sure if they stayed.

I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?

Are you saying because they didn't say Hurricane that you can't claim on your wind policy? Well, I would love for them not to call a hurricane a hurricane here in Florida. We have an extra large deductable if it is a hurricane. Any other wind problem (tornado) does not fall under the same deductable. So what harm does it do. Nada. What will really come into play is when the people with their wind coverage try to collect and the insurance company says, no it was flood. And flood will say, no it was wind.

(Reuters) - When the National Hurricane Center declared Sandy a "post-tropical storm" just before it made landfall, a lot of homeowners across New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Maryland may have saved a lot of money. The governors of these states have told insurance companies that because the storm was not classified as a hurricane, the insurers can't enforce costly hurricane deductibles on storm-related claims.

Quoting sar2401:That's where I can't say how it works from state to state. I only have experience in California. As long as an area was declared a disaster area, mandatory evacuation zone, or crime scene, and the information was published, any civilian remaining in the area was subject to arrest. There was no tape needed, although we obviously tried to close of access to the area the best we could. In real life, we warned people and escorted them out of the area, assuming they weren't commiting any other crime. If we caught you in the area a second time, you went to jail. Other states have different laws about how a disaster areas and manditory evacuation areas are declared, so I can only speak with authority about California.

oh ok i live in louisiana and we have to secure scene then can arrest but right before a storm don't have the resources to do that.....

your not telling the whole story they can only enforce it if they tape off the area and secure the area.....like they do in a hazmat scene.....

That's where I can't say how it works from state to state. I only have experience in California. As long as an area was declared a disaster area, mandatory evacuation zone, or crime scene, and the information was published, any civilian remaining in the area was subject to arrest. There was no tape needed, although we obviously tried to close of access to the area the best we could. In real life, we warned people and escorted them out of the area, assuming they weren't commiting any other crime. If we caught you in the area a second time, you went to jail. Other states have different laws about how a disaster areas and manditory evacuation areas are declared, so I can only speak with authority about California.

Quoting ScottLincoln:The data that scientists are using to determine conclusions on matters of climate science are actual sets of data, not supposed/assumed/made-up. Such data sets, well, wouldn't actually be data.

Note that I'm not a kid (hint: there's a number in my account name for some reason). Darwin's law so far spared me because I am using my head (and because many other reasons: from unified warning codes through all of Europe to better building codes)...

It is also interesting, that in Cuba the Sandy death toll is much lesser than in the U.S. (though there had been destroyed some 35.000 buildings, certainly much more than in the NJ and NY). It's ironic that the death toll in the U.S. is similar to that in Haiti. Appearantly something is wrong if Sandy can kill more preople in a grown up country like the U.S. than in the poorest country in the world.

I hope they are able to set up a organized enough effort to be able to take the brunt of whatever materializes out of that. Even a moderate 6-12" snow storm could wreck all kinds of havoc to a gutted infrastructure.

Quoting StormPro:I'm sorry if I don't understand but I'm speaking of the actual, concrete set of data...not supposed or assumed.

The data that scientists are using to determine conclusions on matters of climate science are actual sets of data, not supposed/assumed/made-up. Such data sets, well, wouldn't actually be data.

Quoting StormPro:

Someone on here, quiet respected by most on here as a matter of fact, said just a couple days ago that artic sea ice was at an 8,000 year low...I asked for a link to proof of this statement and got no [reply].

I don't know about on the ball, but 27 years of law enforcement and search and rescue work did teach me a few things. :) I know for sure what doesn't work, and having us going out and arresting people doesn't work. I'm not sure why turning off utilities is such a hard concept to understand. It just takes some pre-planning on the part of utilities and emergency management. We got really good at this in California during the days of rolling blackouts, so it's not technically all that difficult.

Quoting czechoslovakia:I see that many people thought that the weather authorities should have issued a hurricane warning. I agree because it was a hurricane up to 4 hours before landfall and a hurricane warning is the most intimidating weather warning and less people would have stayed at the shore, I think the storm was underestimated by TWC and an extreme warning wasn't given for the shore until the 5 pm advisory which by then those who stayed behind were trapped

I disagree with you. the warnings were very clear on TWC. I watched it so I know. Norcross and all meteorolgists on the channel kept repeating storm surge, high winds, etc, pointing out the coast area most likely to feel the brunt. And NJ was in the target most of the time. I think the uncertainty of where it would make landfall was a good enough reason for people to not heed the advice. They kept thinking it would be another Irene. I knew last year when that storm didn't pan out for the area forcasted that something like this might occur. We see it all the time in the Keys. That one 2 years ago didn't hit and this one is coming on the same path. People just don't realize all the forces that steer hurricanes. The people who did not evacuate ignored the warnings as I did during Wilma.

To me, the term "high wind warning" implies that winds are going to be high enough to damage some structures, at least a few trees will fall, some branches are definitely going to come down, and we may lose power. For me in Colorado it also means "high fire danger"... even if they don't say it. I don't need to be told EVERYTHING. Some things I figure out for myself by paying attention.

There were also numerous flood warnings and storm surge warnings for the to-be-affected areas. When I see "high wind warning" combined with "flood warning" and headlines like "Superstorm Sandy" I know that it's not just "wear a jacket" weather. But yes, that's just me. I'm a weather nerd and I like to be prepared.

To some extent we must accept that some folks simply won't heed ANY warning. Everybody is harping on the use of the word "hurricane", but come on, every single time there is a hurricane warning there are plenty of people who stay behind anyway. It's not like that word will magically make all humans responsible.

That said, it's definitely all part of a grand conspiracy. Of course, I'm part of the conspiracy, so it doesn't bother me too much.

I don't care who evacuates or not. Those who choose to face nature also face Darwin; and neither nature nor Darwin care if the word 'hurricane' is used or not.

HOWEVER! Lawyers Do care if the word 'hurricane' is used. Can you tell us all what impact the omission of the word 'hurricane' has on wind/flood/homeowners insurance policies? Can you tell us all whose interests are served by that?